Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Urban design and streetscape effects 7.45 To assist my consideration of the urban design effects of the proposal, the application has been peer reviewed by Council’s Consultant Urban Design Expert, Morten Gjerde. Mr Gjerde has reviewed the urban design outcomes of the proposal against the design guide in Appendix Petone Commercial 1 of the District Plan (assessments attached as Appendix4) 7.46 It is important to note that both Mr Gjerde and Mr Bowman have peer reviewed the proposal against the design guide in Appendix Petone Commercial 1 but that each peer review is undertaken in respect to their areas of expertise. Mr Bowman as Council’s Heritage Conservator, considers the heritage effects of the proposal, such as the effects on the surrounding heritage and whether the proposal will detract from this historic character. Mr Gjerde as Council’s Consultant Urban Design Expert considers the proposal in terms of urban design and the overall contribution to the streetscape. 7.47 For these reasons I have separated the reviews by Mr Gjerde and Mr Bowman as part of this report but I consider that their respective assessments should be read in conjunction. 7.48 I will now summarise Mr Gjerde’s assessment in accordance with the design performance standards. Building shape 7.49 Overall, Mr Gjerde considers the proposal meets the design performance standards for building shape. He considers the overall height is positive as it provides companionship to the corner building in both the Jackson Street and Tory Street elevations. However, Mr Gjerde raises concerns over the increased height of the building due to the stairwells and is of the opinion they should be deleted from the scheme or modified considerably. 7.50 While I note Mr Gjerde’s concerns, I do not consider the adverse effects of the increased height to be unacceptable. This is due to the setback of the stairwells from the Jackson Street frontage. I consider the setback provides mitigation of the visual effects of the increased building that could be seen to detract from the overall building shape. I acknowledge the design is unusual in terms of the stairwells protruding above the roofline but the views of these stairwells from the wider environment will be limited given the stairwells setback from the outside of the building.
Building modulation 7.51 Mr Gjerde considers the proposal satisfies these performance standards in a contemporary manner and both principal street facades are well modulated. I note that Mr Gjerde disagrees with the suggestion on the drawing that the roof deck balustrade could be perceived as a recessed parapet. 7.52 I concur with Mr Gjerde’s comments and while I have noted his comments on the perceived recessed parapet, on balance I consider the proposal to meet this performance standard when assessed in an urban design capacity. Wall materials and openings 7.53 Mr Gjerde considers that at street level, the proposal largely satisfies the design criteria. Above verandah level, the project includes significant areas of glazing that will be either recessed behind the balustrades or concealed behind the fixed louvers. 7.54 Mr Gjerde’s initial review raised concerns with the proposed operable louver system. In order to satisfy this performance standard, it is considered the walls should appear solid. Based on the additional information provided by the applicant on 28 March 2012, Mr Gjerde considers the spacing of the louvers should be tightened up so that the screen element is meant to read as a variation on a solid wall element. Mr Gjerde does not consider this will be reading and that 80mm spacing is the maximum he would consider given the relative thinness of the louver blades. Mr Gjerde considers the key is the appearance of the screen and not the extent to which people inside the building are able to see out and that the design guide is about protecting the character of Jackson Street. 7.55 Mr Gjerde notes in his review of 29 March 2012, that the screen is suggested to be sliding and has queried where it will slide to and how the building will appear then. Mr Gjerde considers the screen must be stationary in order to create a sense of order in these facades. He also notes that the louvers are now somewhat deeper than the frame. His expectations, based on the initial drawings, are that the louvered screen will have a definite and substantial frame around each panel. This will require the details put forward in the additional information provided by the applicant on 28 March 2012 to be modified. Due to this report being required for circulation, Mr Gjerde considered this could be addressed by a condition of consent. 7.56 In responding to the applicant’s query as to whether the roof top balustrades on the northern, eastern and western facades could be either timber or the same material as the louvers, Mr Gjerde considers the project will be at odds with its surroundings in this sense and that his suggestion is to use timber above roof level was to limit the extent of the ‘clinical’ appearance of the design. He agrees that a textured surface, as
Page 1 and 2: Officer’s section 42A report for
Page 3 and 4: 2.11 Apartment 6 would be located i
Page 5 and 6: Site history 3.11 The existing ware
Page 7 and 8: As six new apartments are proposed,
Page 9 and 10: 6.0 Submissions 6.1 The application
Page 11 and 12: policies and rules are of particula
Page 13 and 14: Heritage effects 7.11 To assist Cou
Page 15 and 16: Building modulation 7.23 Mr Bowman
Page 17: 7.37 Mr Bowman considers the colour
Page 21 and 22: Signs and lighting 7.63 In his asse
Page 23 and 24: 7.77 In summary, Council’s Consul
Page 25 and 26: Privacy effects 7.88 It is consider
Page 27 and 28: Management Act, I do not consider t
Page 29 and 30: 8.0 Relevant plan provisions Distri
Page 31 and 32: and protection of natural and physi
Page 33 and 34: at least 48 hours prior to any phys
Page 35 and 36: Compliance with this performance st
Page 37 and 38: Appendix 1 Huttview map of affected
Page 39 and 40: Appendix 3 Assessment by Council’
Page 41 and 42: Appendix 5 Assessments by Council

Planners Report.pdf - Hutt City Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?